Recent Entries
Just A Rambling Meandering Smattering of Almost-Completed Thoughts…
You Have To Serve Before You Can Lead
Seriously, Obama - Why In the World Southwest Virginia?
Monthly Archives
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
RSS Feeds
07
Let’s Talk About Hate
Jul 29, 2008They call them “hate” crimes. The first time I heard the phrase, the irony struck me – as though a crime of violence could be anything BUT a “hate” crime. Duh. Obviously the perpetrator hates – hates the victim, hates society, hates his or her mother, hates people who wear Birkenstocks – hates something. Isn’t it pretty much a given that violence is a result of hate?
The media is reporting that the Sunday shootings at a church in Knoxville may have been a “hate” crime, which will up the ante when it comes to punishment. The reporters who are speaking of the possible “hate” crime put a more sinister spin on the heinous act than before the “hate” label started getting tossed around.
To me though, the most sinister thing about these latest reports is the reminder that legally, something called a “hate crime” even exists in the first place.
Think about it.
Three people were murdered and four people were seriously injured, and judging from the amount of ammunition that the shooter had on his person that he did not have the chance to access, the intent was far worse than the outcome. Murder was the crime, along with attempted murder, etc. – now explain to me why the motive matters.
Seriously. With the exception of self-defense or accident, why should it matter whether a murderer acted because his mother didn’t tuck him in at night, or his father didn’t show him enough affection as a teenager, or he hates a church’s liberal philosophy? I hold that the “why” should NOT matter, and the fact that it does is indeed kind of sinister.
Again, think about it. To kill someone is bad. But as it stands, to kill someone for reasons that the law find particularly egregious is worse. See, the big picture here begs that we consider the following – aren’t we ceding to the government the right to decide what is and is not acceptable thought?
While surely few would disagree that killing someone because you hate their race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. is horrible, in the eye of the law (that phrase is crucial here), why should it be worse than killing someone because they cheated you out of raise at work or wouldn’t go on a date with you? And given a power - ANY power - when has the government EVER reigned itself in? It hasn’t. It doesn’t. And with the door open on the idea of government deciding what is acceptable thought and what is not, can we really be naive enough to think it will stop here?
Two words that are even more ominous that “hate crime”?
How about “Thought Police”?
Posted by Jody Lee Bush Caves, We Pay
Jul 23, 2008Thanks for nothing, President Bush.
On Wednesday the House passed legislation to bail out 400,000 overextended homeowners facing foreclosure and prevent mortgage biggies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from going belly-up.
Chances are that the legislation will pass the Senate and become law within a matter of days.
Earlier the same day, President Bush dropped his opposition to the bailout.
Perfect. Just perfect. Heaven forbid we take responsibility for our own actions and our own lives. Isn’t it lucky for strapped homeowners who didn’t read the fine print or just plain bought more house than they could afford that this is an election year and vote-hungry politicians are falling all over each other to dole out mercy and compassion to folks who might otherwise have to declare bankruptcy.
It reflects a mindset that I have long held will be the ruin of our country if allowed to continue unchecked. It is bad enough when the government bails out companies to keep them afloat instead of letting the free enterprise system of business dictate survival of the fittest. But now they want to bail out private citizens, too.
Bush has nothing to lose at this point except self-respect – there was no political reason for him to cave. But he did. And now I have to go kick something.
Sigh. I’ll try to make it something inanimate.
Chatting with Terrorists
Jul 23, 2008I don’t get it. Why is Obama defending his proposal to “negotiate” with Iran, sticking to his guns instead of saying he misspoke? The answer is obviously that he DOES believe it is possible to negotiate with terrorists. But again, I don’t get it.
I don’t get how he or anyone else for that matter can honestly think that is possible to talk a terrorist into or out of anything. It shows a basic fundamental misunderstanding of what a terrorist is.
Iran’s president has made it abundantly clear that his own death and the death of his people is preferable by far to making concessions to or striking a bargain with the devil – the devil, of course, being us. America. How do you “negotiate” with that? Simple. You don’t.
Obama speaks as though no one has ever tried to reason with the Iranian president before now. “…if we show ourselves willing to talk and to offer carrots and sticks in order to deal with these pressing problems, and if Iran then rejects any overtures of that sort, it puts us in a stronger position to mobilize the international community to ratchet up the pressure on Iran.”
Carrots and sticks to persuade Iran not to develop nuclear weapons? The very nature of this type of terrorist precludes tempting them with “carrots” or threatening them with “sticks”. It is absurd.
Perhaps if no one had ever tried to reason with Iran’s leader before, it would be worth doing just so we could say that we did. But the fact is that we did. We have. So have a lot of others. But Obama clings to this approach as though it is not only new, but reasonable.
It is that kind of thinking that makes him the LAST person I want in charge of defending my freedom, my country and my life.
NOTE: July 23, 2008: The Iranian nation ... will not retreat one iota in the face of oppressing powers,” Iranian President Ahmadinejad.
It’s A Funfest Bead Brawl!
Jul 12, 2008Other than two of my former broadcast partners, no one knows better than I that it was only a matter of time before the Funfest Mardi Gras Bead Throw became a wrestling match. Because for several years, I was the one (along with my radio partners) standing on the main stage on Broad Street, throwing those beads to a crowd that – over the years – became frighteningly manic.
The first year or two it was pure fun. I have pictures of the crowds of hundreds of people smiling and waving at us on the stage while they awaited the tossing of colorful beads into their midst. But after the first couple of years, something changed, and the change became more marked over the years. At one point, I remember turning to my partner and, with a nervous smile, commenting “Gee, you’d think we were tossing diamonds to them!”
What started out years before as fun had become an unspoken kind of competition and – while the prize was nothing more than a bunch of worthless colorful beads – people had become sort of - - well, rabid in their attempts to gather as many as they could, right down to swiping them out of other people’s hands.
Now, I’m not talking about the kids here. These were adults behaving this way. And while it wasn’t ALL the adults - probably not even MOST of them - it was a significant enough number that my partner and I were becoming downright uncomfortable about the whole process. We watched people shove each other and tug over beads until they broke. We stood there while people accosted us afterwards, angrily shouting at us and accusing us of purposefully throwing beads in a direction opposite where they were standing. It was as though they suspected a weird bead conspiracy going on and more than once, I was cornered afterward by someone demanding I reach into my hidden bead stash (huh?) and hand them over since I had so obviously ignored that person while I was on stage.
Geez.
I do not know at what point the Funfest officials decided to have a bead throw just for children, but it was a good idea. (The reason I do not know what year it was is because once my official duties as a radio personality no longer included emceeing Mardi Gras, I stopped going. ) And since it was adults who were causing the problem, this seemed like a good solution. It should have worked.
It didn’t, of course. Now apparently the parents just watch the kids catching the beads, then fight amongst themselves anyway. There are evidently a small but vocal number of Funfest attendees who are determined to ruin the fun at any cost.
A couple observations – in my experience, it was WOMEN who caused the bead brawls 98% of the time. Not men. Do with that what you will.
And let me add that it was ALSO my experience that Mardi Gras was a blast, filled with treats and music and games and shows, with tons of fun to be had. The bead throw(s) were always a tiny little piece of what went on, the rest of which was entertaining and generally problem-free as far as the crowd goes. So my suggestion would be to ditch the bead throw altogether. Funfest Mardi Gras has always been a great celebration and will not suffer one little iota if we take away this one aspect of it.
(I will post some pics next week here of Mardi Gras past – ah, good times, good times….)
You Have To Serve Before You Can Lead
Jul 09, 2008Now HERE’s an interesting idea - make it mandatory that, in order to serve as President of the United States - i.e. Commander in Chief - you must have served a minimum of two years in the military.
Hmm. Of course, I’m not talking about trying to put it into effect in the near future. Something like this would have to be arranged for, say, ten years before it went into effect, just to make things fair. But wouldn’t it be a huge advantage for our President to have actually served in the armed forces before he is put in charge of them?
This debate is being bandied about in political circles and the idea is apparently gaining some steam for the moment.
Personally I’m a no-go on this one. While I think that a military background - even a brief one - would be a big advantage, I would hate to automatically exclude a potentially great leader because he had flat feet or her eyesight was insufficient for service.
Then again, there is a big argument in favor of mandatory military service for a presidential candidate - do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
That, friend, is my question to YOU....
